PPP poll: Trump totally running away with this GOP race now; Update: Used to support universal health care

posted at 5:32 pm on April 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

I don’t know what’s left to say about polls like this that I haven’t already said, so follow that last link if you missed it the first time around. Today’s funsies: Trump 26, Huckabee 17, Romney 15, Gingrich 11, Palin 8.

Only 38% of Republican primary voters say they’re willing to support a candidate for President next year who firmly rejects the birther theory and those folks want Mitt Romney to be their nominee for President next year. With the other 62% of Republicans- 23% of whom say they are only willing to vote for a birther and 39% of whom are not sure- Donald Trump is cleaning up. And as a result Trump’s ridden the controversy about Barack Obama’s place of birth to the highest level of support we’ve found for anyone in our national GOP polling so far in 2011…

Among that 23% only willing to vote for a birther Trump is cleaning up even more, getting 37% to 13% for Huckabee and Palin, and 10% for Romney and Gingrich. He’s a lot weaker with the 38% who say they’re perfectly happy to vote for someone who’s dismissed the birther theory- with them Romney leads at 23%, with Huckabee at 18%, Trump at 17%, Gingrich at 10%, and Palin at only 7%.

Couple of things here. One: Take a good, hard look at this classic Gallup poll from March 2007. Remember it whenever you see any new “Trump leads” data going forward. Two: No one seriously believes that 23 percent of Republicans have a hard-and-fast “Birthers only!” rule in the primaries. As Ben Smith notes, that’s less of a serious metric than it is a case of Kos’s pollster throwing chum in the water for the nutroots. Three: The one interesting data point here is that, without Trump in the race, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Palin all gain at least four points — whereas Romney gains just one. Last week, I thought there might be some overlap in the Trump and Romney bases, but this suggests that the Donald is pulling more votes from the right than from the center. Is that a result of his Birther push or more a function of grassroots conservatives looking for an outsider because they’re tired of politics as usual?

Via Mediaite, here’s his interview this afternoon with Rush Limbaugh. It opens with Trump donating $100,000 to the annual cure-a-thon.

Update: I already knew this and have linked at least one piece previously in Headlines about it, but if you missed it then, you’ll be hearing much more about it if he runs:

For a few months, Trump hashed out a policy agenda. It wasn’t much, but it was enough to fill a quickie book: The America We Deserve, published in January 2000. The Trump of 11 years ago sounds a lot like the Trump who has taken over cable TV and the Huffington Post top banner these past few weeks: He’s against immigration amnesty. He’s worried about terrorism. He’s rending his hair over America’s economic decline. Oh, and there were a few other things.

“We must have universal healthcare,” wrote Trump. “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.”

The goal of health care reform, wrote Trump, should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. “Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork,” he writes.

So there’s something else he has in common with Romney, I guess.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 15, 2011 at 6:41 PM

We need someone to attack liberalism as a philosophy all the time, every day in every way possible.

That means fiscal and monetary policy, but it also means social policy and national security policy too.

They are all intertwined.

For liberals, they excuse their insane fiscal policy with two words:

Social Justice

Get my point?

Brian1972 on April 15, 2011 at 6:48 PM

We need someone to attack liberalism

OK…like who?

The five names that come to my mind off the top of my head are Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Beck and Coulter…last I heard, they aren’t running.

Look at Reagan. I doubt there was any recent president more conservative than him, but even after 8 years of a highly successful presidency, Liberalism did little more than lie low. There was no major Liberal program under Reagan that I can think of that was demolished.

Any candidate who’s big thing is attacking Liberals will drive away independents in droves. Like it or not, that’s just the way it is. Hot Air types aren’t the majority of voters.

So that leaves the usual arguments about the usual suspects…who’s Conservative, can be anti-Liberal without being either obviously so nor a RINO? My two cents-Rubio, Bachmann and Palin.

They are all intertwined.

For liberals, they excuse their insane fiscal policy with two words:

Social Justice

Uh, preaching to the choir on that one. But it’s better to deal with fiscal insanity as such rather than being social issues. Kick the monetary leg out from under them.

For argument’s sake, if Trump (or anyone) could do that, isn’t that the point? Can we afford to sacrifice fiscal and economic repairs just because a candidate does not share many of our social issues?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:02 AM

So you tell me.

Trump or Obama?

It is absolutely pathetic that it may come down to that, but in fact that is the choice we may face.

I know who Obama hangs out with and I have heard about what they believe and how many millions they think need to die. I don’t think they are kidding.

I have seen nothing similar to that regarding Trump.

The GOP stable means nothing because none of them will win anything, but they will lose with their dignity intact. Huzzah!

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:14 AM

For argument’s sake, if Trump (or anyone) could do that, isn’t that the point? Can we afford to sacrifice fiscal and economic repairs just because a candidate does not share many of our social issues?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Eminent domain abuse is not a “social issue.” Trump’s unqualified support of Rham “Deadfish” Emanuel is not a “social issue.” His call for confiscatory taxes on the wealthy is not a “social issue.”

Ask Vera Coking how she feels about Trump’s “social issues” and get back to me, Zhiv.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:15 AM

The GOP stable means nothing because none of them will win anything, but they will lose with their dignity intact. Huzzah!

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:14 AM

We have two declared candidates so far. Maybe you’d better wait until we have at least one debate before you get all fatalist on us.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:16 AM

It’s the “no credible candidates” part that I disagree with you on.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Sarah Palin
Bolton
Rand Paul

Those would be credible to me. Palin being the best of the lot.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:16 AM

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Correction: 3. Still not time to panic yet.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Those would be credible to me. Palin being the best of the lot.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:16 AM

And until Sarah Palin says she won’t run, I’m not going to believe that she won’t. Until Sarah Palin says that she will run, I’m not going to believe that she will.

It’s called “pragmatism,” Sharr. It’s in awfully short supply in politics, but you might find life to be a lot less worrisome if you try it.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:19 AM

So you tell me.

Trump or Obama?

It is absolutely pathetic that it may come down to that, but in fact that is the choice we may face.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Then this country is pathetic. End of story. Are you going to be part of the machine that turns the pathetic wheels? At what point do we say “No, we’re not playing this worthless, pointless game anymore. We’re tired of being asked which end we want to be raped in by our leaders. We want our f**king country back!”?

I’ll tell you this much: a vote for either of them tells the people in charge that the people of this nation will accept whatever gruel is served to us, and it will be only a matter of decades before that’s our actual meal, doled out to us by our government overseers.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:19 AM

I’ll tell you this much: a vote for either of them tells the people in charge that the people of this nation will accept whatever gruel is served to us, and it will be only a matter of decades before that’s our actual meal, doled out to us by our government overseers.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:19 AM

You have such a gift for gab, Maddie. We really must arrange a time and place to have a beer together. Preferrably sooner than later.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Sarah Palin

Too unpopular to run.

Bolton

Too smart to run.

Rand Paul

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Too many dads in the race to run.

Better start looking at 2016.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM

We have two three declared candidates so far. Maybe you’d better wait until we have at least one debate before you get all fatalist on us.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Agreed, but it isn’t looking good.
I think Palin will run and do very well.
If she doesn’t run then we come to some hard decisions.

Until then I fully intend to enjoy Trump making Obama’s life miserable and horrifying the media.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM

You have such a gift for gab, Maddie. We really must arrange a time and place to have a beer together. Preferrably sooner than later.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM

That would be a good time, gryph. Just know that I’m a lot shyer and quieter in person.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Too unpopular to run.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM

You disappoint me, Maddie. Such passion, and then you turn around and think that Sarah Palin isn’t worth voting for, or would stay out of the race, because of her unpopularity?! The offer to have a beer with me stands, but if we do, you’re buying the first round. ;-)

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:23 AM

I’ll tell you this much: a vote for either of them tells the people in charge that the people of this nation will accept whatever gruel is served to us, and it will be only a matter of decades before that’s our actual meal, doled out to us by our government overseers.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:19 AM

How has that not been the case for the last 20 years?

Bob Dole, John Kerry, Al Gore, John McCain?

Too unpopular to run.

Who do you think should be the candidate in 2012?

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Until then I fully intend to enjoy Trump making Obama’s life miserable and horrifying the media.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM

You and me both, my friend. If we could find a way to attach Trump’s brassies to someone of either gender with the right set of principles, our republic might just stand a chance of survival past the 21st century.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:25 AM

…I’m a lot shyer and quieter in person.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:23 AM

As am I. But that’s nothing that a couple of beers and/or a few shots of bacon-flavored vodka wouldn’t cure.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:26 AM

You disappoint me, Maddie. Such passion, and then you turn around and think that Sarah Palin isn’t worth voting for, or would stay out of the race, because of her unpopularity?! The offer to have a beer with me stands, but if we do, you’re buying the first round. ;-)

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:23 AM

I didn’t say that she wasn’t worth voting for. I’d vote for her in the primaries and in the general without hesitation. I’m saying she’s smart enough to know that with her numbers, she doesn’t stand a chance. She needs more time. I’m betting 2016 will be her moment.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM

You and me both, my friend. If we could find a way to attach Trump’s brassies to someone of either gender with the right set of principles, our republic might just stand a chance of survival past the 21st century.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Amen to that.

That is what I like about him the most is that he isn’t afraid. I guess I understand Weimar Germany and the choices they made now more than I care to. MadCon is right that we need to be very careful.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM

She needs more time. I’m betting 2016 will be her moment.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:28 AM

I’m not sure our republic can wait that long. I’ve thought long and hard about who I would vote for in the primaries if not Sarah Palin…and I can tell you that an apt description of my thought process goes something like:

Second place is first loser.

That’s how badly I do want Sarah Palin to run.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:31 AM

How has that not been the case for the last 20 years?

Bob Dole, John Kerry, Al Gore, John McCain?

So you’re saying we should just accept the way things are? Go along with the endless dilution of democracy? Um…do you identify with the Tea Party? With that attitude, I can’t believe you would.

Who do you think should be the candidate in 2012?

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Herman Cain or Sarah Palin. I don’t think either of them will, but I’ll sure as hell vote for either of them in the primaries.

If Mitt, Huck, Gingrich or any other worthless RINO runs, they get no votes from me, and I only wish that millions like you would join me in protesting this broken f**king system. As for Trump…I don’t support communists, period. This s**t has got to stop.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:32 AM

As am I. But that’s nothing that a couple of beers and/or a few shots of bacon-flavored vodka wouldn’t cure.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:26 AM

As long as I can take a minute to go outside and smoke a bit of my own relaxation inducer, I’m sure our conversation will be quite rousing.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:34 AM

I’m not sure our republic can wait that long. I’ve thought long and hard about who I would vote for in the primaries if not Sarah Palin…and I can tell you that an apt description of my thought process goes something like:

Second place is first loser.

That’s how badly I do want Sarah Palin to run.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:31 AM

A-f**kin’-men.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:34 AM

If Mitt, Huck, Gingrich or any other worthless RINO runs, they get no votes from me, and I only wish that millions like you would join me in protesting this broken f**king system. As for Trump…I don’t support communists, period. This s**t has got to stop.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:32 AM

The good news is, Sarah Palin isn’t the only Republican candidate I would vote for. The bad news is, you and I are in the same boat in terms of our refusal to vote for Huck, Mitt, or Newt.

But there’s a third scenario that no one seems willing to talk about, and which I find just as disturbing as any other: What if Palin runs, goes all the way, wins, and finds that our republic really is too far gone to save? What if we the people really don’t have the political will to do what is right and necessary, even with the Wasilla Thrilla (wo)manning the Oval Office?

/facepalm

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:36 AM

/facepalm

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Sorry. I told Sharrukin not to be an eeyore, but I find myself lapsing from time to time. I think I need to hit the sack for the night. Peace-out, my fellow HotAirheads.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:38 AM

So you’re saying we should just accept the way things are?

I am saying we have accepted it and part of that acceptance is that we ‘cookie cutter’ politicians. They have to have great hair, they have to sound the right way, not be upsetting, and they have to pay their dues to the folks in power.

I have heard people talk about Palin’s voice and her clothes more than her stand on the issues.

If we expect different then we had better be willing to tolerate different.

Herman Cain or Sarah Palin. I don’t think either of them will, but I’ll sure as hell vote for either of them in the primaries.

Palin yes. Cain bothers me because I like for someone to have been in situations where they have been bribed and accepted or declined. Not sure Cain has seen that yet.

If Mitt, Huck, Gingrich or any other worthless RINO runs, they get no votes from me, and I only wish that millions like you would join me in protesting this broken f**king system.

I think thats called a third party because they ain’t giving up their grasp on power willingly. They permeate the GOP and that isn’t going to change for at least a decade.

As for Trump…I don’t support communists, period. This s**t has got to stop.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:32 AM

I don’t see Trump as that bad, but I do agree we need better quality than we are getting.

The GOP isn’t going to change.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:41 AM

But there’s a third scenario that no one seems willing to talk about, and which I find just as disturbing as any other: What if Palin runs, goes all the way, wins, and finds that our republic really is too far gone to save? What if we the people really don’t have the political will to do what is right and necessary, even with the Wasilla Thrilla (wo)manning the Oval Office?

/facepalm

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:36 AM

You answered your own question, my friend.

If Sarah Palin can run, go all the way, and win…then our republic is not too far gone. Self-fulfilling.

Peace-out, brother.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:41 AM

I am saying we have accepted it and part of that acceptance is that we ‘cookie cutter’ politicians. They have to have great hair, they have to sound the right way, not be upsetting, and they have to pay their dues to the folks in power.

And I am saying if the country can’t elect a leader without his entire being consisting of superficiality with zero principles, then this country is lost. Start over. Let’s take over Canada, turn the clock back 228 years, and try again.

Palin yes. Cain bothers me because I like for someone to have been in situations where they have been bribed and accepted or declined. Not sure Cain has seen that yet.

You know, I can’t disagree that what you are concerned about is a damn good test for a candidate. All the same, we can’t be choosy if we care about principles. Either we gamble with someone like Cain, get lucky with someone like Palin, or lose with the rest of the pack.

I think thats called a third party because they ain’t giving up their grasp on power willingly. They permeate the GOP and that isn’t going to change for at least a decade.

I don’t see Trump as that bad, but I do agree we need better quality than we are getting.

The GOP isn’t going to change.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Perhaps you’re right. In which case, I say f**k it: time for the real Tea Party/Conservative Party/Whatever. We start by getting people elected to the House from our party. Hell, if Kucinich and Ron Paul can get elected, we can get guys elected. Then the Senate. If Bernie Sanders can win a seat, so can one of ours. From there…the sky’s the limit. If we lose, we’ve done what we could. If we win…then…well…we win.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:51 AM

For argument’s sake, if Trump (or anyone) could do that, isn’t that the point? Can we afford to sacrifice fiscal and economic repairs just because a candidate does not share many of our social issues?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Eminent domain abuse is not a “social issue.” Trump’s unqualified support of Rham “Deadfish” Emanuel is not a “social issue.” His call for confiscatory taxes on the wealthy is not a “social issue.”

Ask Vera Coking how she feels about Trump’s “social issues” and get back to me, Zhiv.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:15 AM

I really don’t care if they tax the wealthy. Personally, I want the Fair Tax…I don’t think the wealthy should be soaked, but I don’t lose sleep over it-they can take care of themselves. They’re not going to hire more workers out of their personal incomes. A lot of the wealthy don’t even own companies so can’t hire anyone. And, with increasing technology it’s hard to say how many of those unemployed workers out there will get “their” jobs back.

As for Trump’s social issues and personal life I really don’t care. I know the guy’s a scum-sucking weasel. But…he does know $ and until that’s dealt with, the social BS is superfluous. At this point I’m at least counting on him to introduce new items into the current political scene. My ears really perked up when he mentioned (25 percent I believe?) import duties on stuff from China. Won’t bring many jobs back, but would do much to reduce China’s competitive abilities.

Liberalism is here to say…sorry to break that to everyone. If/when the economy improves we’ll go right back to tax and spend Democratic jive. The best we can hope for is that it doesn’t get out of control again.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 1:57 AM

.
.
…And let us remember one important thing about “The Don”–he’s a deal maker. If you listen to him talk, he can’t hide it from his verbiage. The guy would be cutting deals in DC and we would be “kill ready” miserable because there are “some” that get so pissed off at the Repubs they go for this trickster. Listen to Marks show today of 4-15. Its on free audio. He has the years, days numbers and the insight on this media hog.

auspatriotman on April 16, 2011 at 2:02 AM

Liberalism is here to say…sorry to break that to everyone. If/when the economy improves we’ll go right back to tax and spend Democratic jive. The best we can hope for is that it doesn’t get out of control again.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 1:57 AM

No offense meant, but that is quite possibly the most defeatist thing I’ve ever read on this website.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 2:03 AM

Then this country is pathetic. End of story. Are you going to be part of the machine that turns the pathetic wheels? At what point do we say “No, we’re not playing this worthless, pointless game anymore. We’re tired of being asked which end we want to be raped in by our leaders. We want our f**king country back!”?

I’ll tell you this much: a vote for either of them tells the people in charge that the people of this nation will accept whatever gruel is served to us, and it will be only a matter of decades before that’s our actual meal, doled out to us by our government overseers.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:19 AM

The machine can be beaten, but it will take the nation’s full measure of attention. That is for sure.

Saltysam on April 16, 2011 at 2:05 AM

No offense meant, but that is quite possibly the most defeatist thing I’ve ever read on this website.

MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 2:03 AM

How is that defeatist? They’ve been around for 150 years and because we don’t like them *poof* they’re going to evaporate?

The best I’m hoping for is that they lose their grip on this country, but they aren’t ever going to go away completely. And until most Americans are convinced about what they’ve been up to, and how they’ve played a major role in screwing up this country they’ll keep on the way they’ve been. But I have little faith that Americans will ever wake up.

They are interwoven into every facet of American society. It’s the Liberals (Communists, whatever) that we don’t hear about that are the most dangerous. Only a few (like Bill Ayers for instance) have appeared on our radar over the last few years. This guy (and thousands like him) has been around for decades working behind the scenes.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 2:10 AM

They’re not going to hire more workers out of their personal incomes. A lot of the wealthy don’t even own companies so can’t hire anyone.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 1:57 AM

I get hired from the wealthy’s personal incomes all the time, though since about 2006, I can tell you their money is scared. It has put me through the ringer, and a good many others that I know.

That aside, remember that productivity is a measure of the cumulative speed of all transactions, and any percentage of the economy transferred to the government is a deceleration and results in less value for our time and energy.
Not good.

Saltysam on April 16, 2011 at 2:15 AM

I get hired from the wealthy’s personal incomes all the time, though since about 2006, I can tell you their money is scared. It has put me through the ringer, and a good many others that I know.

That aside, remember that productivity is a measure of the cumulative speed of all transactions, and any percentage of the economy transferred to the government is a deceleration and results in less value for our time and energy.
Not good.

Saltysam on April 16, 2011 at 2:15 AM

That depends on what you get hired for. Sure, you can be employed as a groundskeeper on an estate owned by a guy who made it big short/long selling stocks, or as a tax lawyer, accountant or the like, but I’m talking about major hiring of workers by corporations. Who hires more people, Bill Gates himself out of his pocket, or Microsoft?

I know their money is scared, and I don’t blame them. My point is that they at least can protect their money-we peasants can’t. I can’t blame the Leftists entirely for what’s going on…in addition to the cold hard reality of ascending Third World countries (China in particular) and the straining of resources, crony capitalism and crooked capitalists are also a major part of the problem.

But if government can be reined in and the leaking of taxpayers’ $ can be curtailed, then not only will Liberal causes hurt, but it would be more difficult for certain capitalists to sponge off of the United States. But, those are the two most difficult things to deal with. Those are deep-rooted things that have been around throughout more than half of our country’s history.

Lobbying/corruption since at least the Grant Administration and creeping Progressivism since at least the 1920s. And in a few years we expect all that to go away.

Conservatives have a knack for wanting just about everything privatized, wanting companies to prosper so we can, but dismiss stuff like the Enron scandal as a trivial singularity. OK with consumers getting ripped off, but not taxpayers. A rip-off is a rip-off of the American people, and one source of evil isn’t any more sacred than a different source of evil.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 2:30 AM

It’s no surprise what happened here. Trump actually TOOK A STAND on something that matters to at least some people, and at least puzzles some others. He’s willing to commit his resources and credibility to pursuing that issue.

People are desperate for a statesman, not a politician who blows in the wind. Personally, I don’t think that Trump fills the bill, but I can understand why he looks good compared to so many empty suits who aspire to office (and who haven’t shown any personal commitment to anything other than ambition). I mean, other than Palin, who else has risked ANYTHING?

fabrexe on April 16, 2011 at 3:36 AM

Trump or Obama, Obama Then, at least, the ensuing disaster can be blamed on the Democrats. We already know what Trump is, we are just arguing over the price.

Viator on April 16, 2011 at 3:51 AM

The good news is, Sarah Palin isn’t the only Republican candidate I would vote for. The bad news is, you and I are in the same boat in terms of our refusal to vote for Huck, Mitt, or Newt.

gryphon202 on April 16, 2011 at 1:36 AM

You can add me to the list. I keep hoping a second choice I can really invest in would surface, but so far none have. I like Herman Cain, but I think he has his own tough slog ahead just as Palin does. None of the alleged frontrunners appeal to me AT ALL. Not Mitt, not Newt, dang sure not Huckster or Trump (who actually makes Mitt look consistent). If Palin doesn’t run, I’ll be very disappointed. Not because I’m a cultist but because I really feel in my gut like she’s the woman for this job at this time. If she doesn’t, I fear we’re doomed. We may be anyway, but at least I’d like to see her give it a shot.

NoLeftTurn on April 16, 2011 at 3:59 AM

It’s not the birther issue that is making the Donald popular – it is that he finally gives a place to their frustration with the right cowering before the political correctness the left manufactured in putting a black man into the presidency. Tough guy McCain was “afraid” to speak out against the man who clearly loathes the country McCain fought for. Not a word from any about his scary civilian army or his demand to slaughter fully born innocent babies -not a word about his theft of GM and just tsk, tsks, at his destructive “no drill until we hit bottom” energy plan.
None have dared to attack the leftist media for being leftist -but the Donald. The base is fuming at the GOP’s failure to boldly attack after the strong message of November’s election -instead it make the usual “deals’ with their friends acroos the isle.
The man,(Donald) is not to be trusted, he could be Hillary’s foil, or Obama’s or not -but we do know he is a blustering form of Romney flip-flopping on principle, but at least he’s attacking -not watching from the bleachers to see which team is winning before he stands and commits.
This shows leadership – not someone seeking the approval of the media before taking a position. Whoever winms the GOP nomination will have to have this kind of attack on Obama -and it won’t be a one-horse trick pony like Christie. Sarah might step up to the plate soon or let Trump soften up the media for her before he fizzles a victim of the right.

Just opine-ing…

Don L on April 16, 2011 at 6:59 AM

(Sarah)Too unpopular to run

Ah, and who made her that way, but the leftist media who will take down whoever the right puts up – and also quite a few anti social-issues (that euphamism for God thingy) conservatives – and (shhh) truth be told – plenty in the GOP who do fear a strong woman.

Don L on April 16, 2011 at 7:13 AM

For argument’s sake, if Trump (or anyone) could do that, isn’t that the point? Can we afford to sacrifice fiscal and economic repairs just because a candidate does not share many of our social issues?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM

This particular comment takes the notion “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to a whole new level, where any poseur who claims to be the enemy of my enemy, despite all evidence to the contrary, is now my friend.

It’s a remarkably aggressive and desperate suspension of disbelief.

Here, you say “I know Trump has been a liberal socialite and a Democrat, but right now he’s call Obaaahma a Kenyan, and this elevates him above all of the conservative politicians in my view, despite the fact that he is demonstrably a liberal who hates conservatives.

Just … wow.

Jaibones on April 16, 2011 at 7:31 AM

If Trump promised $100B in cuts, he’d have vetoed the vapor compromise and been quoted as calling it “the most terrible deal I’ve ever seen”. With money being our greatest concern, I’m amazed that many instantly dismiss him.

JCred on April 16, 2011 at 7:38 AM

I’m tiring of Trump’s hyperbolic statements. Either something is “the worst” that you’ve seen, or its not. Is there any middle ground with this guy? Can a deal be a “bad deal” without being “the worst” ? I mean, does the guy have a thermostat?

ted c on April 16, 2011 at 7:42 AM

Yes, the script is set…

The man with vim, vigor, vitality, brashness and a bit of bombast tells us all he is expectantly waiting to show us what has been hidden for so long.

He makes sure he does all the rounds, gets all the publicity and that, when the unveiling comes, he will be there to show it all to us.

He gets ratings to help his self-inflated ego and then when the unveiling comes… it is empty, devoid of meaning.

Is this the script of Donald Trump going after Obama’s BC?

No.

It is Geraldo Rivera at the opening of Al Capone’s vault.

And yet the scripts parallel each other so eerily that you have to wonder….

On a more serious note…

Conservatives have a knack for wanting just about everything privatized, wanting companies to prosper so we can, but dismiss stuff like the Enron scandal as a trivial singularity. OK with consumers getting ripped off, but not taxpayers. A rip-off is a rip-off of the American people, and one source of evil isn’t any more sacred than a different source of evil.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 2:30 AM

Nope, I’m not one of those people.

I’m a ‘Three Strikes, You’re Out’ person, who sees that whenever a company has officers, board members or anyone else willing to break the law on behalf of their company, that the company is not good and must be broken up, sold piecemeal, never to be put back together again.

I would go a step further: as companies are legal fictions that have been considered ‘people’ I would then carry that to the max and propose that no company is to last longer than the adult life of a REAL person, thus it must be disbanded after 40 years. For all the benefits these legal fictions get they should also face finality to their beings just like real people do so they do not accumulate wealth and power in realms that are nearly impossible for a person to do in a single lifespan. With a certain death date known upon founding of a company, preparations can be made to ensure that it is properly liquidated and assets distributed to those holding bonds and stocks in the company.

Then extend that fiction further and put forward that all things known as ‘sales’ are this thing known as ‘income’ and should be taxed at the individual rate of real people for that tax bracket. There would be no distinguishing between these legal fictions as citizens and actual, real citizens, and those legal fictions would have the exact, same rules applied to them for political donations and all other things that real people have applied to them.

Hell, give them the franchise right with a single vote to be determined by a process outlined in their company charter, so that they get the same benefits, restrictions and ability to lobby any government as any single citizen has. And have that pulled from them the first time one of their corporate officers or anyone working for the corporation doing its business commits a felony… plus require it to outsource its security after that so it is bound to the same rules and regulations on firearms as real people are who commit such crimes.

This also means that the entire board, president and CEO must be American citizens, else they get the equivalent rights of any foreigner in America.

Drastic?

Perhaps.

But it levels the playing field, gets rid of the corporate giants and automatically churns the market. I was not the one to propose that companies be made into fictional people, but I see no reason to give them benefits that no individual can get without incorporating themselves, and no drawbacks of being mortal. Make them citizens in a real term, make them mortal, and get rid of all special treatment for them and treat them like citizens.

Yes, it won’t fly.

But it does answer the problem of corrupt companies and how to get rid of them rather well… even if you just enact a Three Strikes system. Enron would still have had its financial irregularities show up, but the first offender would have put everyone on notice that this company was 1/3 of the way to not being there any more. And the second time… well… if the first didn’t wake you up the second should.

ajacksonian on April 16, 2011 at 7:43 AM

Until then I fully intend to enjoy Trump making Obama’s life miserable and horrifying the media.

sharrukin on April 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Me too. As long as Trump is not attacking other GOP candidates, I’ll be cheering him on.

As long as Trump is not attacking other GOP candidates, other candidates should return the courtesy. That includes YOU, Mitt.

petefrt on April 16, 2011 at 10:47 AM

I swear, we have a huge opportunity to get rid of Obama and all our side can do is bicker with each and demonize anyone who might actually have a chance in beating Obama. I’ts making me sick.

“oh Trump said this at one time. Trump said that at one time. He’s not qualified.”

People can change their positions. People can change their minds. what wrong with that. I’d rather have someone who changed their position on something because they see it a different way than to have someone be consistent and defend something that is clearly wrong. (ie: Mitt Romney and Romneycare)I’d have more respect for Romney if he just came out and said, “yeah, maybe I was wrong there.”

Obama won because he’s a celebrity. That’s what you need right now is star power. Sarah Palin may be good but she’s been so marginalized in everyone else’s eyes that it’s an uphill battle for her. But Trump is practically handing the oval office to you guys on a plate and you’re all having temper tantrums because he’s changed positions?

What politician hasn’t changed positions before? Wasn’t Reagan a Democrat at one time?

Our society is a celebrity obsessed society at the moment. What better to take on Obama than one with equal or greater star power than he has and is not afraid to call Obama out on what he’s done or has the guts to say what needs to be said. That’s why Trump’s resonating with so many right now.

While Cain, Paul, Bachmann, West are all good in their own ways, they can’t compete with the star power Obama has. We need someone who can.

Trump may be that ticket. It’s called fighting fire with fire people.

Pcoop on April 16, 2011 at 11:01 AM

This particular comment takes the notion “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to a whole new level, where any poseur who claims to be the enemy of my enemy, despite all evidence to the contrary, is now my friend.

It’s a remarkably aggressive and desperate suspension of disbelief.

Here, you say “I know Trump has been a liberal socialite and a Democrat, but right now he’s call Obaaahma a Kenyan, and this elevates him above all of the conservative politicians in my view, despite the fact that he is demonstrably a liberal who hates conservatives.

Just … wow.

Jaibones on April 16, 2011 at 7:31 AM

I hear you, but again, does it matter what a candidate’s ideological views are if they indeed can fix the problems with the government spending/budget and enact policies that make it so that companies, both large and small, can prosper, that Americans can be “allowed” to keep more of what they earn, and free up lending?

Six banks were closed this week-that’s 34 so far this year-over 300 hundred in the last two years. How is whether PP or NPR gets funding helping in that department? Want to blame the unions for this? Want to blame public employees? Want to blame Obama? Go ahead. Surely that will fix these systemic economic problems.

Also, I wonder how many “Conservatives” who have had deposits in those failed banks rejected the FDIC coverage of their accounts? Wanna bet “zero”? That’s OK if they do, but please don’t show up at Tea Parties and blather about the Evil Socialists and gubment programs en masse. How about sane deliberation as to what is reasonable in government and what is not for a change?

What do social/ideological problems matter if Americans are losing their shirts and America is losing out to foreign (namely GD Communist) powers looking to cut our throats. These entities aren’t winning the ideological war, they’re winning the economic war. The ascendancy of their Leftist ideologies will naturally follow.

So, no, I don’t care if Bozo the Clown gets elected if he/she can make this country economically strong again. The tug of war between Left and Right-that’s fine, but that’s for normal times, and surely the Left has had too much sway and we need to push back to at least achieve equilibrium.

Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer Reagan II, but I don’t think we can expect that from this field. So if a Trump can at least shake things up and direct the conversation towards radical economic policies I’d be happy, and could care less who he schmoozes with considering how things are going right now. One more time, the guy knows how to make money. We can’t pick and choose our Capitalists-they either are or aren’t successful, so why not listen to the ones who are?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

But it does answer the problem of corrupt companies and how to get rid of them rather well… even if you just enact a Three Strikes system. Enron would still have had its financial irregularities show up, but the first offender would have put everyone on notice that this company was 1/3 of the way to not being there any more. And the second time… well… if the first didn’t wake you up the second should.

ajacksonian on April 16, 2011 at 7:43 AM

Interesting, thoughtful analysis.

I dunno. The thing is, it bothers me when I hear things that mandate Federal rules for companies (I believe that’s what you’re saying?) if those companies don’t follow the pure Capitalist model. To me, that’s just as bad as controlling them to benefit Socialist policies.

But I do get the conundrum. If they aren’t controlled then you get collusion, price-fixing, price-gouging, monopolies and crony Capitalism which is in fact Socialism anyway.

Who is the final arbiter of who is and who isn’t a pure Capitalist concern? The government lawyers? We trust them? Should there be certain industries that are vital to the country’s welfare that should have special rules applied to them?

The interesting thing is that when one vital industry charges heavily, the other industries suffer as they receive less revenue. But then we have to look at those other industries…if they get hurt by rising costs of Needs, then maybe those industries based upon Wants are not really necessary in the first place and are an unnecessary drain on resources.

OK, so if that happens, why did it happen? Not government taxation, nor union deals, and the other overblown BS I keep hearing around here and elsewhere. It happens because resources are strained. Basic needs have to be taken care of first and foremost. Wants are secondary and expendable for survival. But the other part of the conundrum is that jobs based on Wants go bye-bye…and how do those people fulfill their needs? They’re out of jobs and pay less taxes, and now Uncle Sam has to go into debt to keep them afloat.

And guess where all this leads us…

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Gah no, anyone but Trump! T-presidents suck, the T clashes with the T of “president.” We need a president whose name launches spittle, like Palin.

Sharke on April 16, 2011 at 11:59 AM

But I do get the conundrum. If they aren’t controlled then you get collusion, price-fixing, price-gouging, monopolies and crony Capitalism which is in fact Socialism anyway.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Crony capitalism is only possible when politicians have the power to decide who wins and who loses in business. They should not have that power.

There are good monopolies and bad monopolies. A good monopoly is when a company dominates the market because they provide the best product at the cheapest price. In a free market, the only way to break such a monopoly is by offering a better product/price combination. A bad monopoly, in contrast, is a monopoly created by non-free market means, i.e. through government intervention.

Things like price fixing are, again, only a problem in a non-free economy. In a free market, any attempt to keep prices artificially high just creates a gap in the market for someone to come along and offer a cheaper price and corner the market.

The incentives created by a free market virtually always benefit the consumer. The incentives created by government control rarely do.

In a free market, you the consumer can vote for a company and its products on a daily basis, in real time, with immediate effect. In a controlled market, all you can do is hope to change the market by proxy, once every election cycle.

The only protection the consumer needs is a basic rule of law which binds a company into an enforceable contract with the customer, and bans physical force from human relationships. Therefore, a company cannot take your money by force, and they cannot give you anything less than what they’ve agreed to give you in exchange for your money. They are similarly bound in the relationship with their employees, only this time the employer is purchasing the product – labor.

I would like to see the state removed from economic interactions as much as possible. It has a legal monopoly on the use of force and has the power to distort and corrupt everything that makes free competition work. The empirical evidence is overwhelming.

Sharke on April 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I would like to see the state removed from economic interactions as much as possible. It has a legal monopoly on the use of force and has the power to distort and corrupt everything that makes free competition work. The empirical evidence is overwhelming.

Sharke on April 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I agree 100%…but…

Look, let’s say you and I wanted to set up an oil company and break into the market and undersell our competitors. I know it’s more complicated than that, as we’d have to buy the oil from traders on the market. However, the major stumbling point would be raising all that capital in the first place. What if the established companies lock in prices with those on the market who buy the crude and in effect lock us out? That can be done without any government interference, and being Capitalists we couldn’t ask the government for help. But if we did, we’d do what’s been going on…hiring lobbyists and buying off politicians and bureaucrats in order to help us out and get our foot in the door.

It’s the nature of the beast. It is about maximizing profit. Capitalists don’t care about the ideologies of free enterprise. The point is to make money.

What if we wanted to start up a utility company in Michigan and sell water or electricity to customers in Georgia? How about a competing gas company…how about ten competing gas companies in the same area all with their own lines underground?

The free enterprise model works for some things better than others. We could sell widgets or services all over the world, but certain commodities are less transportable and/or are scarce. In those cases, competition is naturally limited.

If so, then the question becomes “how do we insure fair market prices rather than scalping the customer unfairly?” Does “fair” even really matter?

If the government steps in to control prices, they might set them too low, making it difficult for the company to operate and then everyone loses. Too high and you have less tax receipts from citizens as they’re spending more on that commodity/service than on other consumer items…so those concerns get hurt and may have to shed employees, less taxes, less consumers…

So, I don’t know. You’re left with some kind of Socialist model in which companies are forced to sit on boards with government reps and citizens (what the Communists here advocate) to manage prices. What about supply? What about foreign interference and competition?

We can’t forget the human aspect-people’s wants and needs. The system will naturally adjust one way or another to balance and at the same time maximize both of those as much as possible. We have to face the reality that the solution may indeed be some kind of Socialism, not out of our personal preferences, but due to economic necessity.

If so, then how do we preserve our national identity and our Liberty? Do we really want Bill Ayers controlling anything we depend on? But, folks have to eat. We have to maintain our standard of living and our civilization or else none of these arguments matter.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Trump will run this ECONOMY like a BUSINESS.
I’ll vote for hime, I’m inspired by people who earn success.

Rea1ityCheck on April 16, 2011 at 3:09 PM

So there’s something else he has in common with Romney, I guess.

Allahpundit, its not the same.

What Trump supports is a nationalized health care plan. I’m assuming further that he supports the single payer option.

In contrast, Mitt Romney’s health care plain is not a nation plan nor was it ever intended to be.

It’s a government mandate (this is the government part of it) that everyone obtain private insurance for use with private sector healthcare providers, e.g. doctors.

Thus, what Romney supports and what Trump supports are not the same.

Conservative Samizdat on April 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Trump will run this ECONOMY like a BUSINESS.
I’ll vote for hime, I’m inspired by people who earn success.

Rea1ityCheck on April 16, 2011 at 3:09 PM

You are a dupe and a nitwit-TV-celebrity-worship culture victim. Trump is the Zsa-Zsa Gabor of business success.

Jaibones on April 17, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Oh…and he’s a liberal and a Democrat and voted for Obama. And when he’s no longer in the race, I can’t wait to rub your juvenile noses in the stink of his lameness.

Jaibones on April 17, 2011 at 7:54 AM

I hear you, but again, does it matter what a candidate’s ideological views are if they indeed can fix the problems with the government spending/budget and enact policies that make it so that companies, both large and small, can prosper, that Americans can be “allowed” to keep more of what they earn, and free up lending?

Um…no, I guess not. But of course Trump is a liberal Democrat who favors Universal Single-Payer Healthcare…so what the hell are you talking about? You need to cut through the TVBS.

Six banks were closed this week-that’s 34 so far this year-over 300 hundred in the last two years. How is whether PP or NPR gets funding helping in that department? Want to blame the unions for this? Want to blame public employees? Want to blame Obama? Go ahead. Surely that will fix these systemic economic problems.

Also, I wonder how many “Conservatives” who have had deposits in those failed banks rejected the FDIC coverage of their accounts? Wanna bet “zero”? That’s OK if they do, but please don’t show up at Tea Parties and blather about the Evil Socialists and gubment programs en masse. How about sane deliberation as to what is reasonable in government and what is not for a change?

Sorry…I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer Reagan II, but I don’t think we can expect that from this field. So if a Trump can at least shake things up and direct the conversation towards radical economic policies I’d be happy, and could care less who he schmoozes with considering how things are going right now. One more time, the guy knows how to make money. We can’t pick and choose our Capitalists-they either are or aren’t successful, so why not listen to the ones who are?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Again, I have no idea what makes you think any of the things you have said, but it seems to boil down to you think Trump “knows how to make money” — Note: he’s bankrupt again due to the real estate holocaust; he’s a real estate guy — but there seems to be little doubt that his “birther” nonsense is the only reason we’re even talking about Trump.

I don’t know if Trump knows how to make money, but he knows how to get attention from weak-minded TV watchers, and of course, he knows how to spend money like a Democrat Senator.

Jaibones on April 17, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Oh…what a surprise!

Jaibones on April 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM

…I’d almost vote for Satan if he ran against Obama in 2012.

PappyD61 on April 15, 2011 at 7:35 PM

That would be a tough choice – Satan or his 666 son Obama?

CatchAll on April 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM

If Mitt, Huck, Gingrich or any other worthless RINO runs, they get no votes from me, and I only wish that millions like you would join me in protesting this broken ******* system.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2011 at 1:32 AM

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” -Edmund Burke

scotash on April 18, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4